Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 348 posts

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#331

Post by nommm-nommm »

jnordwick wrote: post #31

>Zork created an Imzy community about debunking falsehoods, mostly political ones. It’s got 3,000 members and no trolls. This just seems like a way of saying "people who agree agree with me." In any controversial topic determing who is a troll at the margins of discussion is very difficult.

Yeah, its impossible.

Say I post "black people are subhuman." I could be trolling (intentionally provoking emotional responses for the lulz) or that could be my actual honest to goodness opinion. You just don't know. There's also no polite way to express that opinion and that's the same for many, many opinions.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#332

Post by nommm-nommm »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #19
amelius wrote: post #2

Why can't a forum cater to everybody? E.g., you could hide troll comments using a filter.

I'm wary of any type of moderation. I don't know how it can be done, but it's very apparent that reddit has lots of moderation (within subs) and it seems to heavily promote echo chambers. I fear we won't make any major advancements until AI can accurately measure our intent, snark, etc. Because we need to not be echo chambers, imo. Unpopular opinions are amazing and needed. But the assholes, for any cause, only serve…

>I'm wary of any type of moderation.

Even moderation that only removes spam? How about off topic posts?

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#333

Post by nommm-nommm »

vectorpush wrote: post #172
Noos wrote: post #134

Places like this tend to show the hypocrisy of the average leftist when it comes to free speech, though. When free speech benefits them by weakening social norms (especially religious ones), they champion it, but the moment free speech starts to subvert the new liberal norms they put in to replace it, suddenly we get arguments about how free speech is a limited concept and pleas to rediscover civility and tolerance.…

There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideological boundaries. The criteria for obscenity on the left is sexism and bigotry, the criteria for obscenity on the right is blasphemy and criticism of traditions. If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fi…

>If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech.

Isn't it possible to defend it as free speech AND say that person should be fired? Something like "its their right to say it/do it but it shows their "true character."? You can both support free speech and also want a person to accept the consequences of what they do or say.

I mean, I wouldn't personally fire anyone for those social transgressions but I can see how if I had certain world views I would see each person as less trustworthy or less desirable as an employee or coworker.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#334

Post by dang »

intortus wrote: post #325
sctb wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what sort of threads we find ourselves in, the guidelines ask us not to comment uncivilly like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In what way was I uncivil? They composed a strawman argument and attributed it to me, hence they pulled it out of their ass.

> straight out of your own ass

> your loggorhea

That is extremely uncivil (and a bannable offense here). If that isn't obvious to you, simply refraining from calling names and slinging personal pejoratives will get you a long way. The point is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#335

Post by intortus »

dang wrote: post #334
intortus wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way was I uncivil? They composed a strawman argument and attributed it to me, hence they pulled it out of their ass.

> straight out of your own ass > your loggorhea That is extremely uncivil (and a bannable offense here). If that isn't obvious to you, simply refraining from calling names and slinging personal pejoratives will get you a long way. The point is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

Just for the record, neither of those statements invoke namecalling and they clearly refer to the person's argument, not the person.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#336

Post by glenra »

zzzeek wrote: post #187
glenra wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump didn't actually "mock a disabled person", at least not for their disability. Trump does do sort of a stammering spastic schtick in speeches to poke fun at people who have had to retrench after a misstatement. But: (1) Trump does that same impression for anyone who has had to correct a misstatement about Trump. (2) The time Trump was accused of doing it to mock a disabled person, his impression was the exact opp…

I watched the video and it is still completely obvious he was mocking that person's disability. perhaps you've never been mocked before but exaggeration is part of it.

You may have seen video of Trump, but you haven't seen video of the reporter in question.

Here's some video of the reporter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baUuXQ443fA

And here's Trump doing a similar impression of Ted Cruz (who is not disabled): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4604reEqk0

You can find more relevant videos (including one where Trump does a similar waving-hands-around thing in reference to an army general who also is not handicapped) and additional background info here: https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-...

Upshot: Trump seems to have treated this reporter exactly the same way he treats other, non-disabled people. Like Ted Cruz and an army general. If Trump were aware the reporter was handicapped, it doesn't show in the video.

Trump appears to be an equal-opportunity mocker; his mocking mannerisms do not discriminate between targets on the basis of physical ability. :-)

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#337

Post by glenra »

drabiega wrote: post #188
glenra wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump didn't actually "mock a disabled person", at least not for their disability. Trump does do sort of a stammering spastic schtick in speeches to poke fun at people who have had to retrench after a misstatement. But: (1) Trump does that same impression for anyone who has had to correct a misstatement about Trump. (2) The time Trump was accused of doing it to mock a disabled person, his impression was the exact opp…

How does the fact that he mocked a disabled person inaccurately absolve him? You've simultaneously said that he did it (and that he does it commonly) and that it's implausible that he did so?

Trump was mocking behavior - the being inconsistent part of it - not mocking disability.

It's the difference between mocking somebody for their views and statements who merely happens to have a disability and mocking somebody for having a disability. The latter is what people thought he did; the former is far less inherently objectionable.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#338

Post by dang »

intortus wrote: post #335
dang wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> straight out of your own ass > your loggorhea That is extremely uncivil (and a bannable offense here). If that isn't obvious to you, simply refraining from calling names and slinging personal pejoratives will get you a long way. The point is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

Just for the record, neither of those statements invoke namecalling and they clearly refer to the person's argument, not the person.

I don't agree. What could be more personal than one's own ass?

Whether we agree definitionally or not, the standard here is well established, and when accounts can't or won't abide by it, we ban them.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#339

Post by dang »

nkurz wrote: post #163
dang wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users flagged it. They don't tell us why, so we don't know why. It may have been the title, so we changed it to the subtitle.

It may have been the title, so we changed it to the subtitle. Switching titles based on flags doesn't sound like a very efficient approach. Maybe you could add a text box or a pulldown for a private comment to the moderators when flagging? Requesting a reason for a flag doesn't seem like too much of a burden, and seems like it would make you much more productive when reviewing. And as a user, it would be nice to have…

We bat that idea around from time to time and may try it. If we do, though, it will be a way that preserves the option of rolling it back if it doesn't pay for its supper. I fear increasing complexity.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#340

Post by vectorpush »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #333
vectorpush wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideological boundaries. The criteria for obscenity on the left is sexism and bigotry, the criteria for obscenity on the right is blasphemy and criticism of traditions. If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fi…

>If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. Isn't it possible to defend it as free speech AND say that person should be fired? Something like "its their right…

Threatening someone's livelihood based on their speech is about as antithetical to the idea of free speech as you can get (short of suggesting they should be arrested or killed for it).

It might be different in a situation where the speech reveals a critical incompetency for an important job (like a judge who suggests certain races deserve harsher punishments or an MD that suggests homeopathy is a viable alternative to chemotherapy etc), but in the general case, if we accept loss of livelihood as a consequence for uncomfortable speech it is a tacit endorsement of censorship.

Post reply on HN